|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 3, 2018 17:23:56 GMT
The old "This is the bible I live by... unless it's something I disagree with, then I have to dig up a different interpretation of the text in some older bible to make it ok" trick. NIV is the one I quote here and the context does not change You can use any particular common Bible to explain this but using various translations only solidifies the original context and only moron “Bible scholars” would not realize the obviousness of that need for verification. The funny thing is there could be a legitimate question of whether a woman who became pregnant as a result of adultery would miscarry the child, but the verses are not talking about pregnancy in the first place making it stupid to make such a ridiculously absolute statement. |
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Dec 4, 2018 19:09:16 GMT
Since "bearing of a child" is proof of innocence, it's far more likely that the potion is an abortifacient than anything else. Besides the NIV is by far the most accurate translation of the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts that currently exist. The worst is King James's Bible which is a (bad) translation of a (horrible) translation of a (barely adequate) translation and the ones that are based on that version. www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Dec 5, 2018 0:05:58 GMT
Since "bearing of a child" is proof of innocence, it's far more likely that the potion is an abortifacient than anything else. I hate to belabor the point.... "belabor", get it?...... but... "bearing of a child" isn't the proof of innocence... Still being able to bear children just is the reward for not being guilty. If she was guilty.. She (supposedly) would get immediately sick and her junk would rot/fall out.. and lose the ability to have children... It's as simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 6, 2018 10:34:57 GMT
It is describing barreness. There would be no need to perform the ritual if she were pregnant as her adultery would become evident. How does that follow? How does her being pregnant prove it wasn't the husband's child? |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 6, 2018 10:36:58 GMT
I see, so we can say the Bible says what we want by claiming the language is a mistranslation? Well... considering that you have to rely on a mistranslation to make your point... Hypocrisy noted. Once again.. the woman isn't necessarily pregnant at the time of the test... It is a description of her losing the ability to conceive future children... Other versions say "abdomen to swell and your thigh to shrivel"... Not necessarily, but possibly? |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 6, 2018 10:43:15 GMT
No.. You are just relying solely on one team's translation to make your argument that still doesn't apply after repeating it for the fourth time. Then it wouldn't be a miscarriage, dumbass... Nobody, not even the NIV, is suggesting the drink makes the woman pregnant. It's a simple "Your organs will swell up and your baby-making parts will fall out" (The Hebrew word used for 'rot' is linked to "falling" or "fall to the ground"/"prostrate") Once again... again... again... again.... because I guess your just a complete fucking idiot... THE WOMAN ISN'T PREGNANT AT THE TIME OF THE TEST: It's not the ancient version of the Maury Povich show.
Once you result to mindless insults I know you're scrambling and have lost the argument. It is a test for infidelity based on pregnancy. The swelling belly confirms that. So you're suggesting the priest had some magic potion which could determine infidelity? There are no unicorns in the Bible and no magic potions. It's an abortion emulsion for women whose belly swelled up (became pregnant) and were known to have committed adultery. This is Vegas' way of showing how much he loves you. He does the same to me...calls me an idiot. You'll just have to forgive him because....it's probably how he was brought up. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 6, 2018 10:51:13 GMT
Once you result to mindless insults I know you're scrambling and have lost the argument. It is a test for infidelity based on pregnancy. The swelling belly confirms that. So you're suggesting the priest had some magic potion which could determine infidelity? There are no unicorns in the Bible and no magic potions. It's an abortion emulsion for women whose belly swelled up (became pregnant) and were known to have committed adultery. This is Vegas' way of showing how much he loves you. He does the same to me...calls me an idiot. You'll just have to forgive him because....it's probably how he was brought up. I thought Vegas was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness, before he found the "joys" of atheism. Sorry if I'm confusing him with another poster. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 6, 2018 11:36:05 GMT
This is Vegas' way of showing how much he loves you. He does the same to me...calls me an idiot. You'll just have to forgive him because....it's probably how he was brought up. I thought Vegas was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness, before he found the "joys" of atheism. Sorry if I'm confusing him with another poster. I like Jehovah witnesses. They're always polite when they come to my door. Atheism automatically turns people into monsters as anyone who's dealt with an atheist can attest. I've heard that someone, I can't remember who, said that they didn't know if atheists should even be allowed to be citizens nor should they be considered patriots.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 6, 2018 11:46:09 GMT
It is describing barreness. There would be no need to perform the ritual if she were pregnant as her adultery would become evident. How does that follow? How does her being pregnant prove it wasn't the husband's child? I was saying that on the assumption that the husband would know when he boinked her. Why would he be suspicious of adultery after pregnancy unless he knew he wasn't the father? The accusation is based on the husband's suspicions alone, so it has nothing to do with pregnancy at all. The verses literally set up the circumstances at which this is performed - A suspicion of adultery where there is NO proof. Pregnancy would either denote some proof or verification that he wasn't suspicious until after pregnancy which seems like a silly time to start being suspicious. They aren't living in Maury Povich times. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 6, 2018 11:49:41 GMT
Since "bearing of a child" is proof of innocence, it's far more likely that the potion is an abortifacient than anything else. Besides the NIV is by far the most accurate translation of the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts that currently exist. The worst is King James's Bible which is a (bad) translation of a (horrible) translation of a (barely adequate) translation and the ones that are based on that version. www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/Bearing a child is not proof of innocence. It may be proof of acceptance, should the husband do so, but neither the wife nor the husband would want their kid to die. It wasn't a potion, it was simply temple dirt water and if that was all that was needed, there would be a lot more abortions being performed for free. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 6, 2018 12:02:40 GMT
How does that follow? How does her being pregnant prove it wasn't the husband's child? I was saying that on the assumption that the husband would know when he boinked her. Why would he be suspicious of adultery after pregnancy unless he knew he wasn't the father? The accusation is based on the husband's suspicions alone, so it has nothing to do with pregnancy at all. The verses literally set up the circumstances at which this is performed - A suspicion of adultery where there is NO proof. Pregnancy would either denote some proof or verification that he wasn't suspicious until after pregnancy which seems like a silly time to start being suspicious. They aren't living in Maury Povich times. Assuming he was boinking her routinely, does that mean he couldn't suspect her of adultery? It seems that might be the ideal time to become aware that someone else had "been there in his place."
"Pregnancy would either denote some proof or verification that he wasn't suspicious until after pregnancy which seems like a silly time to start being suspicious."
This seems counterintuitive. That is precisely when some husband might suspect she had been unfaithful...especially if she was pregnant and he hadn't been boinking her.
But, are you assuring me that a woman could have never been subject to this test if she was pregnant? IOW, maybe the whole thing was a pretend ritual (ie no actual power in the concoction the woman drank) and it was/is God really making the call and God would be sure and NOT kill a fetus insider her as part of the punishment for her infidelity. So what would happen if she took the test and was pregnant?
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 6, 2018 12:15:12 GMT
Since "bearing of a child" is proof of innocence, it's far more likely that the potion is an abortifacient than anything else. Besides the NIV is by far the most accurate translation of the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts that currently exist. The worst is King James's Bible which is a (bad) translation of a (horrible) translation of a (barely adequate) translation and the ones that are based on that version. www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/Bearing a child is not proof of innocence. It may be proof of acceptance, should the husband do so, but neither the wife nor the husband would want their kid to die. It wasn't a potion, it was simply temple dirt water and if that was all that was needed, there would be a lot more abortions being performed for free.
They're probably not as reliable as a medical abortion, but they might be effective.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 6, 2018 12:20:49 GMT
Bearing a child is not proof of innocence. It may be proof of acceptance, should the husband do so, but neither the wife nor the husband would want their kid to die. It wasn't a potion, it was simply temple dirt water and if that was all that was needed, there would be a lot more abortions being performed for free.
They're probably not as reliable as a medical abortion, but they might be effective.
maybe there is but there was nothing particularly special about the dirt since the tabernacle was mobile. Natural miscarriage are very common |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 6, 2018 12:25:11 GMT
I was saying that on the assumption that the husband would know when he boinked her. Why would he be suspicious of adultery after pregnancy unless he knew he wasn't the father? The accusation is based on the husband's suspicions alone, so it has nothing to do with pregnancy at all. The verses literally set up the circumstances at which this is performed - A suspicion of adultery where there is NO proof. Pregnancy would either denote some proof or verification that he wasn't suspicious until after pregnancy which seems like a silly time to start being suspicious. They aren't living in Maury Povich times. Assuming he was boinking her routinely, does that mean he couldn't suspect her of adultery? It seems that might be the ideal time to become aware that someone else had "been there in his place."
"Pregnancy would either denote some proof or verification that he wasn't suspicious until after pregnancy which seems like a silly time to start being suspicious."
This seems counterintuitive. That is precisely when some husband might suspect she had been unfaithful...especially if she was pregnant and he hadn't been boinking her.
But, are you assuring me that a woman could have never been subject to this test if she was pregnant? IOW, maybe the whole thing was a pretend ritual (ie no actual power in the concoction the woman drank) and it was/is God really making the call and God would be sure and NOT kill a fetus insider her as part of the punishment for her infidelity. So what would happen if she took the test and was pregnant?
You would have to define frequently. However the entire point is that the husband could be suspicious with NO proof meaning that she did not have to be pregnant to accuse her of adultery. If the husband saw his wife making googly eyes at another dude he could suspect something on that day. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 6, 2018 12:53:54 GMT
Assuming he was boinking her routinely, does that mean he couldn't suspect her of adultery? It seems that might be the ideal time to become aware that someone else had "been there in his place."
"Pregnancy would either denote some proof or verification that he wasn't suspicious until after pregnancy which seems like a silly time to start being suspicious."
This seems counterintuitive. That is precisely when some husband might suspect she had been unfaithful...especially if she was pregnant and he hadn't been boinking her.
But, are you assuring me that a woman could have never been subject to this test if she was pregnant? IOW, maybe the whole thing was a pretend ritual (ie no actual power in the concoction the woman drank) and it was/is God really making the call and God would be sure and NOT kill a fetus insider her as part of the punishment for her infidelity. So what would happen if she took the test and was pregnant?
You would have to define frequently. However the entire point is that the husband could be suspicious with NO proof meaning that she did not have to be pregnant to accuse her of adultery. If the husband saw his wife making googly eyes at another dude he could suspect something on that day. I actually didn't think I'd have to define "frequently" but I mean often enough that any evidence of pregnancy could possibly/reasonably be due to HIS sperm. Once a week, in my hypothetical scenario. IOW, he's not been away at war for 6 months and came home to find his wife visibly pregnant. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 6, 2018 13:02:05 GMT
They're probably not as reliable as a medical abortion, but they might be effective.
maybe there is but there was nothing particularly special about the dirt since the tabernacle was mobile. Natural miscarriage are very common We don't know there was nothing special about the dirt...maybe at the time they developed this tradition/ritual, there WAS something special about the dirt and it did work to cause a woman to swell up and...whatever else they said might happen. And from there on it just became a practice but subsequently ineffective after they moved the tabernacle. I can just hear the gossip amongst the wives....
Worried wife: "Oh dear, I'm gonna have to take the infidelity test tomorrow."
Adulterous wife: "Yeah, that old trick. I had to take the test 4 times last year...nothing came of it and I'd been boinking Hezekiah when Jethro was away. Just go drink some wine afterward and the taste will go away."
Faithful wife: "Well I took it three years ago when the tabernacle was down in that ravine. I didn't swell up, but I've never been able to become pregnant. So, who knows? I told Jonathon he was just shootin' blanks."
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 6, 2018 13:43:27 GMT
maybe there is but there was nothing particularly special about the dirt since the tabernacle was mobile. Natural miscarriage are very common We don't know there was nothing special about the dirt...maybe at the time they developed this tradition/ritual, there WAS something special about the dirt and it did work to cause a woman to swell up and...whatever else they said might happen. And from there on it just became a practice but subsequently ineffective after they moved the tabernacle. I can just hear the gossip amongst the wives....
Worried wife: "Oh dear, I'm gonna have to take the infidelity test tomorrow."
Adulterous wife: "Yeah, that old trick. I had to take the test 4 times last year...nothing came of it and I'd been boinking Hezekiah when Jethro was away. Just go drink some wine afterward and the taste will go away."
Faithful wife: "Well I took it three years ago when the tabernacle was down in that ravine. I didn't swell up, but I've never been able to become pregnant. So, who knows? I told Jonathon he was just shootin' blanks."
well we do know there was nothing special about it unless all dirt they travelled on for 40 years had abortion capabilities that lasted for life. Any ability the water had was a result of Gods judgement of the matter. Otherwise everyone who accused their wife of adultery would automatically be killing their kid if she were pregnant and innocent and there is no indication of that happening. I feel like we have to keep adding possibilities to what is a very basic edict. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 6, 2018 14:25:25 GMT
You would have to define frequently. However the entire point is that the husband could be suspicious with NO proof meaning that she did not have to be pregnant to accuse her of adultery. If the husband saw his wife making googly eyes at another dude he could suspect something on that day. I actually didn't think I'd have to define "frequently" but I mean often enough that any evidence of pregnancy could possibly/reasonably be due to HIS sperm. Once a week, in my hypothetical scenario. IOW, he's not been away at war for 6 months and came home to find his wife visibly pregnant. Well you wouldn’t need six months. again, there no reason to add the condition that pregnancy begets suspicion only to turn around and say there’s no way of knowing so to be on the safe side let’s kill it. I say look at it from a common sense perspective. Do dudes become suspicious/jealous more often or less often based on whether their spouse is pregnant or based on other signs and indicators? Unless the dude is sterile or they are celibate I would see no reason for a guy to be jealous on the basis of the wife being pregnant and especially if we use your scenario of them having an active sex life. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 6, 2018 17:27:28 GMT
I thought Vegas was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness, before he found the "joys" of atheism. Sorry if I'm confusing him with another poster. I like Jehovah witnesses. They're always polite when they come to my door. Atheism automatically turns people into monsters as anyone who's dealt with an atheist can attest. I've heard that someone, I can't remember who, said that they didn't know if atheists should even be allowed to be citizens nor should they be considered patriots.
I beg to differ, sir. Not an atheist myself, but in my time I have known some very decent ones. Vegas is okay. It's just his way of being friendly.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Dec 6, 2018 18:08:46 GMT
This is Vegas' way of showing how much he loves you. He does the same to me...calls me an idiot. You'll just have to forgive him because....it's probably how he was brought up. I thought Vegas was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness, before he found the "joys" of atheism. Sorry if I'm confusing him with another poster. I was brought up Catholic... then Baptist.... I do like the JW's... not enough, so to speak... but...  |
|
